This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Incentivize them how?
You say that "culturally enforcing monogamy" is equivalent to women being "restrained"; ok, by what mechanism will you restrain them?
As I often say:
Return to 1993.
Make it harder in general to attend college, which will incidentally make it harder for women to go to college, as a natural effect of making it harder to obtain funding for unprofitable degrees.
Women with college degrees are more arbitrarily selective of their mates, have more debt (and pick degrees that pay less), and are generally more liberal which correlates strongly with 'anti-male' sentiment. This is not universally true, but the impact is too large to ignore.
Fewer women going to college means, on the margins, more of them are likely to seek marriage.
Remove the economic privileges that make it preferential to hire women over men, we'd simply expect men to gain back more resources, which, as per the aforementioned studies, would mean more marriage, more families.
I see no reason not to do this because women themselves have only gotten increasingly miserable since 1993. THEY THEMSELVES are not any happier than they were back then, so something clearly went wrong.
Point of fact: this restrains BOTH Genders.
Again, I've said it before:
No sex before marriage solves the problem for both sides.
We could try making marriage a stricter, more meaningful contract again, too.
But nobody has a single hangup about restraining male behavior. There'd be little pushback if you wanted to pass a law that made it legal for women to unilaterally kick their husbands out of the house for alleged abuse, but specifically banned men from doing the same. This is the whole issue.
We're already restraining male behavior... why it it somehow beyond the pale to discuss restraining ladies?
I've brought this point up before with... oh it was YOU, SPECIFICALLY. 1 year ago. We are not making progress, it seems.
Really? I think there would be considerable pushback against a law that is that explicit about stating that female abuse doesn't happen and that only men can be abusers. I realize there is a sizeable contingent of feminist legal theorists who functionally believe this, but I doubt your hypothetical law passes anywhere in the U.S. At most, they try to write the definition of "abuse" in such a way that it's much more difficult to accuse a woman of it, and even that would be tough.
How many male jurors pushed back against the Clancy verdict?
I don't think there would be any pushback; I think men would actively welcome this.
There was no Clancy verdict. One of three men, and none of the nine women, objected to the otherwise-unanimous vote of not guilty by reason of insanity.
So 66% of men, n = 3, agree that female abuse is literally beyond their ability to comprehend.
(And the 33% was of a particular demographic whose women are stereotypically maximally hostile to men.)
No. 2 men out of 3 in a jury of 12 were convinced to say that there was at least reasonable doubt that Lindsay Clancy was legally sane when she murdered her kids. While I disagree with these men (and the 9 women), this is not such an obvious thing as to be equivalent to "female abuse is literally beyond their ability to comprehend"
I think the common argument for Clancy supporters was that she must be insane; how else can you explain what she did?
The common argument among Clancy supporters is 'Astrology says her husband did it'.
The fact that she was crazy seems well established; her mental health issues predate the murders. I have no difficulty believing that 11/12 jurors held that was enough to rule that she was not guilty for reason of insanity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link